CBS will air a two-hour Survivor: The Australian Outback finale, when the $1 million winner will be revealed, along with a one-hour reunion episode Thursday. USA TODAY television news reporter Gary Levin has covered the show since its beginning. He broke the story about plans to air the reality show in October 1999 and wrote several exclusive stories before the premiere in June 2000.

Send in your questions about reality TV and the Survivor franchise (Survivor 3 is in the works).

Comment from USATODAY.com Host:
Queue that familiar theme music... Are you one of the 28.5 million viewers tuning in each week? Gary has all of the answers and analysis you need for tonight's finale.Boston Mass:
Good Afternoon Gary. Since you have been watching the show, don't you think colby realizes that if it is him and tina as the final two that colby does not stand a chance. Since colby should win immunity he should vote tina out and go to the final two where he should beat out keith since he is a little more disliked thatn colby. What do you think?

Gary Levin:
There are several unpredictables here. Obviously, the last immunity challenge is crucial in shaping the outcome. Keith clearly is most vulnerable, so if he isn't protected, chances are he'll be the first to go. As for the odds of Colby vs. Tina, he's in a relatively good position. Both have made few enemies among the jury of seven who will vote for the final winner, but Colby clearly has demonstrated his skill at playing the game and winning challenges. So he seems deserving. Of course, that may not be the main factor.Toronto, Canada:
Has there been any interest in taking the program one step further by adding a celebrity component to it? Often game shows will do this...or are the practicalities of getting celebrities to allow themselves to be portrayed this way make it impossible to ever get off the ground?

Gary Levin:
Producers have discussed a celebrity Survivor, not unlike the old Battle of the Network Stars show that aired in the 1970s. But there are logistics to be considered...the production schedule obviously couldn't conflict with their movies or TV shows, and it's unclear how many big-deal celebrities would submit to six weeks of such harsh conditions.Charlotte, NC:
I don't care what anyone says. This season of SURVIVOR has been just as compelling as the last one;it just has a totally different feel and mood. The mix of people is much less antagonistic and more disarming. Their personalities have more or less clicked with each other. For me, that has made it MORE involving because you're having to vote FRIENDS out rather than enemies. Why have so many people jumped on the bandwagon of denegrating this season?

Gary Levin:
I think a good part of Survivor's early appeal was the scheming among the contestants, the psychology of who would betray and lie about their loyalties to win the prize. So this year's friendlier crop of players just seems less interesting to some viewers because that dynamic is missing. But I suppose it comes down to whether you're naturally cynical about human behavior.waynesburg,pa:
Will "Survivor" ever stop! It get even more ridiculous each time I hear about it. Will this be the last season for this show?

Gary Levin:
Not on your life. A third edition will be filmed this summer and premieres in October. CBS has already committed to a fourth, to air next spring. And you can bet that as long as the show remains popular, there'll be a fifth and sixth one too.Tacoma, Wa:
Do they shoot scenes more than once, eg. the immunity challenges? I swear some of the camera angles and spontaneous shots they get would be impossible without re-takes.

Gary Levin:
Most of the challenges in Survivor are shot by several cameras simultaneously, to get reactions from various players. The current Survivor uses about 18 different camera crews.
Scenes are not generally reshot; more often, producers show only a small portion of an interview. But there are times when action in a planned contest may be interrupted for camera movement.West Carp, Iowa:
How would you compare the intellect (if any) between the dedicated Survivor viewer and the dedicated pro wrestling viewer? Anything at all to compare? Neither one seems to believe that what they're watching is contrived.

Gary Levin:
Not sure about that. I think fans of both shows recognize they're not watching completely spontaneous events. But wrestling is clearly more scripted: The "athletes" are given story lines and relationships. Survivor is contrived in the sense that players are given tasks and challenges, but they're not being told how to react.
As for comparing viewers' intellects, I'll leave that to you.Syracuse, NY:
The T.V. audience has declined for Survivor II when compared to the first Survivor. I feel this is partly because the current survivors are looking a lot less unrelatable (half of the current members could be models). Do you think the show is losing its edge by incorporating too many Hollywood-type characters on a reality-based series?

Gary Levin:
It's unfair to say that looks are turning people off. (And by the way, the audience is up at this point compared to the first Survivor, it's just not growing week to week).
Viewers generally prefer good-looking people to ugly ones, even in so-called "reality" TV.
The relatability issue is as much personality as it is looks. But any decline in interest, in my opinion, has more to do with what the players and saying and doing than with whether they look like models.Stafford, va:
When this segment of Survivor started, who did you think was going to win?

Gary Levin:
I really tried not to even guess, because I figured I'd be wrong. Almost no one predicted Richard would win the last time. But I did think both Elisabeth and Colby would go pretty far.Portland, Oregon:
Hi Gary, I think the immunity challenges have been unfairly biased toward the large and the strong. I'm tired of seeing Colby run with water buckets! The first "Survivor" seemed to have a better balance of mental and physical challenges to assure the winner was well-rounded, not just a hard body. What do you think? Thanks, Erik B.

Gary Levin:
Hi Erik. It does seem like there are fewer challenges based on mental skill rather than physical strength, although Colby just won the "memory game" contest too, where he matched objects. But part of his success also has to do with the fact that the other physically strong contestants were eliminated weeks ago.Alexandria VA:
What do you think about keeping the winner a secret from the other contestants.

Gary Levin:
I think it's probably a good idea. With all the scrutiny from would-be spoilers, it's too easy for them to let clues slip when doing interviews and TV appearances. Plus there's some fun for us in learning the winner just as they do.Frederick, MD:
How much savings are the Networks realizing with reality TV versus sitcoms?

Gary Levin:
Well, that depends on how the reality shows perform. In general, most of these shows cost about one-third as much as a drama. As long as their ratings are equivalent or stronger, reality TV is vastly more profitable. The only drawback is that they have limited appeal for repeats or syndication, so networks count on earning most of their profits right away.Stockton,Maine:
How is it that Colby's mom 'just' happened to be there at the last immunity challenge? Was there a family member for each contestant?

Gary Levin:
No. If you listened closely, when Colby won the reward challenge he mentioned how excited he was to camp out in the Aztec "tomorrow night." Usually, winners get their rewards right away. But obviously, they needed time to fly in the chosen relative once they knew who won. So that, to me, was the giveaway that mom would show up. They did the same thing when Sean won the night on the yacht last summer, and found his dad was the skipper.Comment from USATODAY.com Host:
That is all the time we have. Later, at 7 ET, former castmember Joel Klug will be online. Enjoy the show.